Well, the title says it all. Socialism and left-wing political ideas have had a massive influence on the 20th century - and I am not just talking about Communism, the USSR and China. Why is, then, that that socialist ideas seem to have fallen into disfavour in the political communities of many Western nations?

Here in the USA it has become a pejorative on the level of "fascism." A typical argument against a policy would be "You can't do that -- that's socialism." Not so much the belief that socialism doesn't work, as that it is evil incarnate. To the minds of us Americans, it conjures up images of the USSR under Stalin rather than, say, the modern Scandinavian nations.

I suppose the main reason for this is the history of the totalitarian nations that espoused (at least in theory) socialism. The average American probably can't imagine socialism without brutal political oppression.

(For the record, let me confess myself an economic idiot and refrain from expressing any opinion on socialism itself.)

um... what she said

Anywho, socialism is disliked by a majority of republicians (who happen to be in control at the moment) because you're taking money from the rich to give things to the poor. The way they see it, it's better to have no government programs like that, as it is cheaper for them to get better coverage than whatever a government program is offering.

-Robert

JonBon - please don't let Greenring mislead you. While his blanket statements have a bit of truth, his distaste for the republicans is clouding any credible reason for our distrust of Socialism. I think Ms. Silverwolf hit much closer to the real explanation.

In America, many of us are taught that the individual is powerful and can grow up and do anything (I remember the Carnegie stories from 3rd grade!). Socialism, to many, is the antithesis of that individualism. It tells us that, "No, we can't do everything if we try hard enough, so let mummy (the government) help take care of you." Yes, that sounds a bit patronizing but that is much more the mentality of one who is uncomfortable with Socialism. It has nothing to do with any of us consciously trying to keep anyone down; it's that we can't see why everyone can't get up.

Does that make any sense? It's early. Maybe I shouldn't post before I've finished my first cup of coffee.

Jaime

Interesting...

In Scandinavia we usually say, by your self you do a lot. Working together, we can do more.

This is true in America as well I bet...

Well, personally I hope that it's just a goes-around-comes-around fashion thing. Socialism (in the democratic, North European sense) predates Marx anyway, so although it has been intimately intertwined with and influenced by Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, etc., it has it's own path.

Actually, maybe that's why it has fallen out of favour - it was so intertwined with Marxism and its spin-offs, which have largely failed, that it is hard for modern democratic socialists in mixed economies to remember the kind of Christian love-thy-neighbour philanthropy and 18th and 19th century labour rights and protection that gave rise to its earliest strands, and then extrapolate them into policies for the present day.

I sort of think that's what's going on in the UK at the moment, especially within the Labour party. At the moment, it seems to have been emasculated rather too much, although if you step back a bit, much of that appearance is to do with the noise rather than the action.

I like that expression. It also should be understood that by ourselves we are only likely to do for ourselves, and some things require a group effort.
I can't understand how those who cling to the far right aspects of capitalism (survival of the fittest) can call themselves christians. But I suppose when you have enough wealth you can isolate yourself from the ideals that Christ taught almost as easily as you can build a security fence around your mansion.
Perhaps a better word can be used for those who think socialism will put us on the brink of communism.
It wouldn't hurt for us Americans to be taught history a bit better in grades 9-12 so we can understand the terminology better. Tell your favorite republican capitalist that all the founding fathers were Liberals and watch the fireworks commence!

They were classical liberals who greatly feared powerful governments. They realized that history had proven that government was, by it's very nature, a threat to human freedom.

Back on topic, it has much to do with the fact that social programs have a history of not relieving poverty. A wise philosopher once said that the poor would always be with us. Let us at least make them work, so they will have less time to engage in criminal activities and produce another generation of parasites.

People take pride when they earn what they get. Socialism doesn't really allow for that as much as capitalism. People want to be self dependent, socialism doesn't really allow for that as much as capitalim. More controlls on wages and other economic regulations inhibits what people want. It's that simple.

CP

Actually socialism is not that unpopular.I See few people seriously talking about cutting SS, medicare or medicaid. The spread of socialism is meeting some resistance, that is all.

There's a confusion inherent in that. You seem to be assuming that because someone is opposed to using the power of government to force everyone to help their neighbor, they are therefore opposed to helping their neighbor. But that's false, what they're opposed to is using government as an agent to commit robbery on their poor neighbor's behalf instead of voluntary charity. That's entirely consistent with Christian principles. Jesus told us to be charitable, which is a virtue. He didn't tell us to use government to force everyone to be charitable, and in fact forced charity is no virtue at all.

Btw, I'm one of those libertarian Christians, and I'm not rich. I'm a struggling small businessperson, barely hanging on to middle-class. I believe what I believe because it's right, not because it personally benefits me.


If the capitalist in question is well educated in history, he'll tell you the founders were libertarians, because that's what liberal meant then, not quasi-socialist as it does now. But the evolution of liberalism, or of the term, has already been the subject of a thread.

Actually, I can't think of any country that doesn't have socialism, at least to some degree. Regardless of whatever rhetoric people may have about "personal freedom," they generally want to be cared for when they end up in trouble. Almost every country does some wealth redistribution for the social benefit, because when the government does nothing for people and leaves their care up to the "free market," things usually don't turn out to nice (witness The Jungle) and when they take the money and spend it on themselves, things turn out just as bad (witness almost every major revolution, ever.)

Some people (especially libertarians, for some reason) are constantly claiming that socialism (or liberalism, or Communism, whatever) is just any form of taxation. They constantly rave about how Hitler was a socialist because he took control of industry. Well, this just doesn't add up. Socialism has some very specific beliefs attached to it that differentiate it from other command-based economies. Socialism is the re-distribution of wealth for the collective benefit, and generally raising everyone's standard of living. The purpose of socialism to try to make everyone happy, or at least happier than they are, seeing as no one will ever be happy. Nazism was the collectivization of all wealth for the purpose of greater control over the nation, so Hitler would have a better way to produce his war machine. Yes, Nazism does invision a perfect world, but that makes it only remotely related to socialism (seeing as their perfect world is starkly different than the Marxist,) the same way capitalism is related to hedonism and gluttony. Yes, both think humans should be free to act as they wish, but beyond that they're completely different.

Other people (well, more like the same people) also like to attach socialism to some sorta of "anti-individualism" and accuse them of wanting a world "where everyone's the same." This is pretty thinly-veiled hostility, but it's just as unfounded as the "Nazis were socialists" claim. Socialism, even in its most extreme forms (which no one thinks would work in today's world) does not "make everyone the same," but rather puts them at the same premise. Everyone has equal opportunities to do what they want, no one has rediculous amounts of money and no one lives in cars. No socialist proposes that everyone live in the same kind of house, drive the same kind of car and drink the same kind of beer. That's just silly. No poster of America's Debate is allowed to go beyond certain rule limits, and none have special rules placed on them, but that doesn't mean we're all the same.

Now that we've defined socialism a little bit ...


Socialism in an extreme form is unpopular because we still have a hangover from the Cold War. Back then, due to factors wholey unrelated to Marxist theory, most socialist (or Communist, whatever) countries ended up in some for of totalitarianism. Everyone just assumed that socialism was to blame, without really looking at issue deeply. Russia and China were so unstable that once their ruling bodies fell, they were probably going to slip into despotism regardless of what sort of economic policy their rulers picked. However, we decieded socialism was to blame, and we drilled it into our kids for about 50 years.

However, we're really not doing that anymore. Sure, we may bust socialism's balls a little bit, but you don't hear the same "Evil Empire" rhetoric that you used to, except from a silly few. Generally, people don't fear that socialists are gonna take over and the KGB is gonna come knocking on their door. By the time my kids are 50, we'll probably see some new countries taking a stab at socialism, assuming America hasn't conquered them all.



Offtopoic note:

While most of the founding fathers were libertarians, they were classical libertarians, (two can play at the "you stole our ideological title" game,) not the new style corporate libertarian. They didn't believe in corporations or monopolies, something far left of even the most liberal elected official in America.

If socialism is so great why aren't the socialists forming communes? It comes down to individual freedom. In a libertarian society individuals are free to form communes and share the work and the wealth produced by their commune. Unfortunately socialists are not happy with that alternative. They choose to confiscate, at gunpoint, the goods of others. If you are a socialist that is fine, just stop pointing that gun at me.

What in the world are you talking about? It would seem as though you were misled when given the definition of socialism in your life. You are not describing socialism. That isn't anywhere near socialism. You're describing some totalitarian dictatorship. Better still, that describes life under warlords. And since when are socialists pointing guns at you?

Why does it seem socialist ideas have fallen into disfavour in the political communities of many Western nations? (JonBon)

Not to over simplify my speculations but a couple closely related answers pop into mind: greed and HEDONISM.

I think we can agree that many people in Western nations aren't content to settle for a home that fits their needs and nothing more, adequate rations, reasonable fulfillments of entertainment, etc. Instead we need extra rooms, elaborate furniture, expensive watches, three times our recommended caloric intake and everything else. If we're trying to truly work within the community and help everyone as well as ourselves it's unlikely we'll get those things.

We want to be happy. Money and the things it can buy makes us happy, right? A 30-inch television screen is more important than our own health, so why shouldn't an overly elaborate lifestyle be more important than helping other people? As hugo has already characterized them, it seems many Westerners are happy to label the poor merely as criminals and parasites.

As much as our system may claim to provide opportunity for any person, it just doesn't seem to be the case. It seems more often than not anymore that those tales of rags to riches are not the result of a working system, but are rather exceptions to the rule. To maintain the money and power that they crave, many at the top must make sure that the poor are always with us. Beyond just earning a profit, we can now make our profits off the failings of others.

That it has worked for but a brief period in the span of our nation's history says nothing for where it is taking us. Is turning a blind eye to the suffering of others and the overall well being of our communities worth the extravagant expenses and over indulgance we have today, likely to become more pronounced in years to come? I think most people like the idea of everybody having access to basic necessities (health care, quality education, etc.), but I think most are unwilling to part with the lifestyle to which they are accustomed.

Maybe I'm being overly pessimistic. I would like to think, though, that we could put the overall well being of our communities before gluttony and greed. We say money can't buy happiness, which is all fine and good, but we have a significantly harder time practicing it in America and other Western nations.

Edited to add: Quotes not meant to imply that those cited in anyway agree with my assessment or opinion. I just thought the couple presented were earlier ideas or representations of feelings I could expand upon in my posting

I am talking about the world we live in today. If I refuse to pay that self-employment tax it will only be a matter of time before I am forced to do so. It could even get to the point where men with guns come and lock me up. debtor's prison still exists for those who don't pay their taxes. You want your socialist world?, go for it. Just leave me out of it.

Do you know what that tv and your health have in common? They both need money to take care of. I'm not being superficial or anything, but, you need money to buy necessities. In socialism, you can get just enough money to be middle class, but, what if you want better than that. Well, too bad. In capitalism, you can make enough money to afford essentials, help less fortunate people, and satisfy your thirst for sucess. Speaking of health, socialized healthcare. In thoery good idea, in practice, horrible. Everyone gets equally crappy healthcare. Take England for example. I remember when I was there, I got sick and had to wait for 2 days for the doctor. Not good.

CP

Briefly: I may have to wait two days to see my doctor here in America. You aren't the only person they have to treat and a two day wait without an emergency is hardly a damning criticism of socialized health care.
-emphasis added-

Socialism would allow you to afford essentials as well. Socialism already sets out to help less fortunate people, whereas capitalism follows more of a greed driven philosophy, or as you put it, "a thirst for success." That success is measured in money, and giving it away to the less fortunate people will not leave you much to measure, will it? Beyond that, for you and others to maintain your wealth basically necessitates keeping others below you, thus not even giving you any true incentive to help those less fortunate, though a guilty conscience might occassionally intervene.

As I said, and as I believe you aptly supported in your response...

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I'm not talking about greed, I don't want to be a worthless nobody in my life, I want to make a difference. In order to make a difference, I have to be successful. Now, in those two sentences, I didn't say the word money once. Less fortunate people. Less fortunate people. Less fortunate people. I hear that a lot, but let's delve into that a little bit. Why are they less fortunate, dunno. A better question, why is it up to the rich to carry the poor? Shouldn't people earn what they get. I hear a lot of liberals saying that most rich people manipulate money, well, why is it that that is worse than having "less fortunate people" be carried by the rich, sounds corrupt to me.

CP

Do you think an ability to dance around using the word money for two whole sentences means capitalism isn't a greed driven philosophy?

Did a whole lot of delving, didn't you?

The reasons why poor people are poor is the topic of another thread since the reasons are varied all across the board. This doesn't just apply to poor people per se but also some of those residing in middle class who will more than likely remain there, struggling to maintain even that status.

Socialism isn't asking the rich to carry the poor.As long as the money is being manipulated the poor have that much less of an opportunity. Provide more opportunity to everybody and perhaps they will find themselves more capable of carrying themselves, and even assisting their neighbor. Looking for a helping hand and asking somebody to walk with you is not the same as asking them to give up their life and carry you.

As it stands, the manipulation of money keeps more people down than it helps up, and it's likely to only get worse. While you complain about fears of the rich carrying the poor you neglect to realize that those on the short end of financial manipulation are already carrying the rich.

This digression may be better suited for the capitalism vs socialism debate. Here's JonBon's question:



I do think ConservPat's post points toward a possible answer: our societal concerns and perceptions have been continually narrowing, our paradigm of self and society has been shifting. While our self-sufficiency has been decreasing, our sense of isolation from - and apathy toward - a sense of community has been growing.

We are more dependent than ever on the labor of others, and yet that labor is less and less seen and known; we are consumers of labors we are not vested in as a community. With mass media and the internet, we are likely to find and identify with like-minded people, and our views tend to become more myopic. In an actual community, we are faced with people who may think and live very differently from ourselves. We may not always like them, but we are a community, and so we find ways to live in relative harmony.

In a real community, we make sacrifices and compromises in order to benefit the community. Our willingness to do this is not based on ideological preference, but rather on a sense of "self" as an interdependent part of a larger community.

But look what's happening today; we don't know our neighbors, we spend our free time watching television instead of sitting on our front porch, we put on a CD instead of singing and playing music with our families and neighbors.

When our sense of personal gain exceeds our sense of "the greater community," socialism sounds like a dirty word.

Well, you quoted two stentences of a paragraph.

Hold up, so how would they get out of the middle class in socialism? They can't because if they wanted to it would be perceived as "greedy"[your words].

Redistributing rich people's money so they can help the poor sounds like carrying to me. "Why do it yourself when the rich can do it for you?"

Well, we have charity, bank loans, ect.

Hold on now, so the rich don't work hard? How do you figure? That isn't really based on much. The rich weren't born rich, someone had to work in order for a family to become rich.

CP

Socialism is immoral, it is the theft of one man's goods and giving it to another. Socialism does not have an aspect of greed involved? Please do not kid me. There are two basic ways of obtaining goods through the free market or through using government to steal the goods from those who have obtained their goods through the free market. The difference is those who engage in the free market must provide a service or product to obtain their goods. The difference is in the free market goods are transferred by voluntary transactions. In my book those who work for their money are less greedy than thieves.

Let us get to efficiency. There are four ways goods can be purchased 1) I can use my money to buy something for myself. A typical free market transaction. I have strong incentive to purchase a quality product at a low price. 2) I spend someone else's money on myself (e.g. a corporate expense account). I have a strong desire to insure quality of the good, the price I have a much less stronger incentive, if a corporate limit on meal expense is $25, I am going to likely spend close to the $25 and pass up the $9.99 special. 3)I spend my money on someone else. In this case the price is most important, the incentive to spend much time seeking a quality product is low.(Though I did get my wife a high quality Makita circular saw for our anniversary). 4) You spend someone else's money on someone else, (the government) who cares about quality or price? (Thanks to Milton Friedman)

I think much of the reason socialism has fallen into such disfavor is because so many people think that's what it's about: helping the poor, the rich carrying the poor, etc. It's a propaganda victory for the right wing. In reality, though, socialism is not so much about helping the poor as creating conditions in which the poor need not remain poor, in which poverty doesn't become hereditary and someone who's born poor can - if they want, and if they try, and if they have some talent of value - lift themselves and their families out of that condition. There's obviously an assumption in there that such conditions do not come about or persist of their own accord, and that capitalism has a natural tendency toward plutocracy. A true Marxist socialist (I've been using the term very loosely until now) has very particular ideas about the mechanisms which bring about this tendency and others which might be employed to counter it, but a lot of what Marxists think is bunk...and therein lies the problem. There's a big difference between Marxist socialism and other beliefs (such as my own) that share some assumptions and methods, but those on the far right - or the far Y-axis of libertarianism - either can't see or deliberately ignore that difference. The popular view of socialism is really guilt by association, and is no more valid than if people developed a distaste for capitalism because Larry Ellison's a jerk. Paleosocialism is dead, and every form of socialism or liberalism that has evolved in the century since gets tarred with the same brush even when it's really quite different.



Excluded middle. Who says it has to be all one or all the other? Extremes are rarely the best solutions in nature, why should we assume otherwise in economics?

Explain to me how that isn't exactly what I said just in nicer words. That sounds like a propaganda attempt from the left. It isn't the rich carrying the poor, it is the rich helping the poor establish a situation in which they are no longer poor. There's no difference. Socialism involves the rich at least partially carrying the poor. There is no doubt about it, it is a fact. And that is wrong.

CP

Are you seriously saying you can't see a difference between creating conditions and enforcing outcomes? Can't help you on that one, I'm afraid.

Come on now. Socialism doesn't give opportunities, it enforces mediocrity. So, the wealthy "create conditions" for the poor, how? By giving them enough money so that they aren't poor. Creating conditions. If I win the lotto, was a condition just created for me? No, I was given money, for no reason. In this context these two terms are the same thing.

CP

I'm not going to quote specific people, I'm just going to address the major points people have been bringing up.




First off, history has taught is this doesn't work. Regardless of if it's "moral" or "immoral," in general most of society suffers when the wealthy are allowed to concentrate their wealth and are not required to share it.

Second off, you assume that the rich made this money themselves. They didn't. If you're rich, you profited from the labor of someone else. If you're a factory owner, you profited from the products your employees made. If you own a oil company, you profit from the oil your employees drilled for and/or processed. If you own a media company, you profit from the news stories your employees wrote. You yourself had nothing to do with it. However, you get most of the profits. How is that fair?

Furthermore, the rich profit from society. The common people are the ones who give them money, which the rich did nothing to earn. The Capitalist would say "the consumer receives a good or service for what he paid, and therefore it's fair." But is that really fair? Should the rich be allowed to demand money for the products of other people's labor, become ridiculously wealthy beyond anyone's imagination, and then give nothing back to people who've made him so wealthy? He's gotten the best out of society, and if you take some of his money, he'll still have the best. Why is it so terrible that he should have to pay to benefit society?


You say "the rich should not have to carry the poor." Well, the poor carry the rich. Without the labor and capital the poor produce for the rich, they wouldn't be rich. So the rich should have to give something back.




First off, history has shown this doesn't work. When there's no taxes, there's no government. Are you really arguing for anarchy? That's just dumb. Society doesn't just "work out."

Second off, property is theft in itself. It's pointing to something and saying "that's mine because I called it, no one else can have it." How is that moral? What gives one person the right to "own" something? I would say that this Earth belongs to all of us. Would you say the Earth belongs to the rich because of their virtue of being talented at profiting from the labor of others?

Sure, without any property rights, there's some pretty obvious problems, but the right of some people to "call" something does not supercede the right of other people to live. I believe in the right of everyone to own things to a certain extent, because that makes life better for everyone, but I don't think it's right that some people should be able to own so much more than everyone else. Is it "moral" that George Bush is a millionaire because his rich daddy could put him through Harvard and Yale while Jane Nobody is a 19-thousandaire because her parents had to support 7 kids?

I was already set straight by Quark for arguing more about and for socialism than why it has "fallen into disfavor" in our society...

I haven't yet visited it, but he recommended these digressions be directed to the other debate actually intended for pitting capitalism against socialism.

Edited to add: My best guess is that Quark was referring to THIS TOPIC

I don't think it's even remotely possible to discuss why socialism has fallen into disfavor without talking about its pros and cons, because invariably someone is going to say "because it's a bad system." It may not directly answer the question, but it's still on the topic.

I really wish I could be as optimistic as people who say socialism has fallen out of favor. I don't see pressure to reduce socialist programs as being as great as pressure to increase them. I guess I cannot debate the issue of why socialism is falling out of favor since,in my view, it is not.

I think the myth of socialism falling out of favor in the US has been fed by Republican successes in the last couple elections. That depends on believing the myth that the Republican Party is not a socialist party.

Before answering the question, I think its important to define this critter we're talking about.

- http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/Ref...577990&pn=1&s=1

Now, that's as good a definition as any. The article linked goes on to point out that the biggest difference between "socialism" and "communism" ain't where they're gonna take you, but simply how they're gonna get there. Communism advocates violent overthrow of the capitalist order, socialism eschews violent overthrow. The remaining differences are mostly matters of degree.

Now, to answer the question:

1) Socialism's similarity to failed communism can no longer be disguised. "Guilt by association" is part of the equation, especially in the US.

2) Socialism's overall failure to deliver on its promises has become a common theme of its opponents. Unlike 25, 50, or a 100 years ago, enough countries have adopted socialism in various strengths to put adequate facts on the ground for supporting a credible counter-argument. Arguments against socialism can no longer be dismissed with "you don't know it won't work, because we haven't tried it yet."

3) Socialism's insistence on "class" division. The social mobility offered by capitalism combined with the reduction of cultural barriers that are economically based have eroded the credibility of "class" rhetoric, a staple of socialism.

4) A long line of prophets of doom who have offered socialist, or socialistic, solutions to problems that have either never materialized or have been mere tempests in a teapot. Only some of these doommongers have been explicitly socialists or focused on economic concerns, but most have been "fellow travellers," and so socialism itself suffers "cry wolf" syndrome by association.

5) An increasing sense of economic optimism and openness to change. Socialism is fundamentally a "safety" philosophy, not an "opportunity" or risk philosophy. Socialism appeals to those who are more risk averse, is considered limiting by those who are willing to risk.

6) The greater sense of participation that citizens have in the "capital economy", both as a result of the increased direct and indirect participation in the capital markets, the increase in home ownership, and greater awareness of the role that capital markets play in the economy. Its hard to cast Bill Gates as a heartless 19th century robber baron grinding his workers into poverty when hundreds of thousands of people starting from all points on the economic spectrum have made a LOT of money riding his coattails.

7) The retreat of socialism from some core elements, and the subsequent perception of improvement as a result. The privatization of nationalized industries is the best example of this dynamic.

In light of some of these issues, "socialism" has been trying to recast itself. Nationalization of industries is less a "plank" today than nationalization of healthcare, which was historically less of a concern since the core of healthcare was individual skill, not natural resources or expensive capital investments, in short, the doctor wasn't earning his money on the backs of the working stiff. The shift on healthcare is best captured by this observation: "classical socialism" was concerned with the worker, "modern socialism" in the context of healthcare is concerned with the consumer. As a result, the doctor's right to earn as much on his own labor as he wants (something that a classical socialist would have supported) is sacrificed.

Since when was socialism ever popular Or even socially acceptable Socialism makes me sick.

JohnLocke, please be more constructive in your posts. It's fine if you don't like socialism, but JonBon's question is:

Why is, then, that that socialist ideas seem to have fallen into disfavour in the political communities of many Western nations?

It's obvious that you believe that socialism has never been in favour in the West. Please give some insight as to why it is not in favour.

Cyan,
I love that name by the way, cool picture too. I believe that socialism was never popular in the west. Many countries have tried it, sort of puting their feet in the water and many countries stand on the border of like france. BUt pure and simple I can only hope that the reason it's popularity continues to go down is because people want to retain as many personal freedoms as possible. Socialism doesn't allow for this. I know because I keep a residence in California.

Well...socialism is somewhat boring, isn't it?
I mean, if everyone is going to receive the same benefits, no matter if they're rocket scientists or McDonalds employees, what's their motivation? Nobody would want to make the rockets, or start up a McDonalds. Eventually, we'd regress into a society where nobody will want to support each other, because nobody will be able to afford to, because nobody will be taking business risks and helping the economy.

See, perfect socialism is perfectly good...but people are not perfect, so a "perfect" socialist state is doomed to failure.

That's a pretty funny dig about California, but really your post is about as close to the truth as me saying, "my aunt Margaret is a purple Squarnoll from planet Spliksplak."

Socialism was created during a time of extreme social inequality, a time when freedoms were being pummeled to the ground, a time when the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution was being used to protect the interests of big business barons, not ordinary citizens, or blacks, for whom the amendment had been drafted. A time when kids were forced to work 10 and 12 hour days. A time when many men were paid in scrip only good at the company store. In short, one of the fundamental creative causes of Socialism was the striving for greater freedoms.

Here's some information from the American Socialist Party:







Don't even try to say socialism is anathema to freedom. Socialists believe in more civil freedoms and democratic processes than you do, I'd wager.

It seems to me that your "study" of socialism is really based on seeing the word "socialism" associated with countries like the USSR. The USSR may have used some of the structures of Socialism, but they were an extremely autocratic country. In practice, they did not have a socialist society. The government centralized all industry "in the name of the people" but in reality it was controlled strictly by, and benefited only, the ruling elite.

ME: Gov't can I make $50,000?
Gov't: Sure, that's what your neighbor makes, sounds fair.
ME: How 'bout $100,000?
Gov't: No, that's unfair, why should you make more money than your neighbor?
ME: Cause I work harder, am smarter, have a harder job...
Gov't: That's enough. The answer is no.
ME: But it says in your platform freedom for all.
Gov't: Yeah, and.
ME: What about economic freedom?
Gov't: Oy vey, pickey, pickey, pickey.
ME: What if the money I have can't support my family? What if I want more, what if I want to be better than mediocre?
Gov't: For God's sake, just move to America.



It's the year 2003, we already have full democracy and freedom. It is impossible to eliminate racial stereotypes. Authoritarian managers. . Yeah, I mean the managers of companies around where I live are just horrible. So other than vilanizing the rich, forgetting the fact that most people will not strive for mediocrity, AND forgetting the fact that we have most of the concepts stated above, what is socialism accomplishing? So what exactly is so appealing about that?

CP

Oh, I'd like to add one more reason, in light of Quarkhead's post and the info from the American Socialist Party.

Americans, and to a lesser extent, Western Europeans, are not too keen presently on social engineering. That's exactly what the ASP advocates.

I love how you've used a hot-button term like "social engineering," which elicits an emotional and negative response, while remaining deliberately vague about what, exactly, you mean.

All societal changes involve paradigm shifts which could often be interpreted by some as "social engineering." I could bore you with a bunch of American history describing the social engineering that went on in the decades after the Civil War, in which the industrialists blantantly "engineered" the lower classes into becoming little worker bees, but why should I bother? In your version of our history, no doubt the rise of Capitalism and the modern industrial state was accompanied by throngs of happy workers singing "Hallejulah" in perfect harmony.

But that is precisely relevant to this discussion, because it is partly our whitewashing of our own history that has led to our increasingly negative view of socialism. How much do most people really know about how the worker-oriented movements began in this country? That in 1880 there were 1.2 million children under the age of 16 in the workplace (almost 20%)? This was a time when companies hired armed gangs to enforce harsh working conditions, when strikes and organising were often put down with gunfire.

Contrary to the beliefs of the zealous capitalists today, it was the Socialist movement which forced, sometimes violently, industry to become more responsive to the needs and care of the worker, and which forced such regulations upon industry as eight-hour days, minimum wage, unemployment insurance, laws against child labor, women's suffrage, well the list goes on.

But what is taught of socialism today? If we are taught that "Socialism" is equal to the systems which were present in the USSR, in China, or in Cuba, no matter how innacurate that is, it places "Socialism" into the context of countries we have seen, for many years, as "enemies." Is it no wonder, then, that Socialism is falling out of favor, when, particularly, most can't even really define it or know its history? And so they must resort to cheap shots, lacking any substantive knowledge whatsoever.

Why is it a "hot-button" term? Because it represents something many folks don't like. What, exactly, do I mean?

Well, lets take Popper's distinction between "utopian" social engineering and "piecemeal" social engineering as a starting point.

Does the ASP platform propose changes in order to meet specific, widely agreed upon social challenges, or is it a blueprint for sweeping social change? Dollars to donuts, its sweeping social change, i.e., "utopian."


Wrong. Social engineering, whether the utopian or piecemeal variety, consists of directed change. Most societal changes are the result of the incomprehensible multitude of interractions between the members of society, undirected by anything but their own interests, passions, and reason. Social engineering consists of deliberate intervention in that process in order to accomplish some specific goal of the interveners. In short, social engineering is design. One way you can tell whether a proposed policy change is "social engineering" is simply this: is it ahead of the curve, or behind?

It would only bore me because the majority of it would consist of badly written fiction.

Actually, the increasingly negative view of socialism is also based on the fact that "socialism" has essentially exhausted the catalog of piecemeal social engineering projects, and has turned to the utopian project or to social engineering projects that are fundamentally irrelavent to classical socialism. (Reason #9)

Your history is all very amusing, and also spotty and innaccurate. Women's suffrage wasn't the work of the Socialism, it was the work of the suffragettes, some of whom were socialist, many weren't. The child labor laws were enacted as much via the triumph of Victorian sensibilities as the passion of socialists. And as far as the labor/capitalist violence of the "robber baron" era, its far overshadowed in most folks' minds by the violence of strikers and protesters today. Take a look at the recent strikes in France... the violence all originated on the labor side. Labor unions in the US are notable for their association with organized crime, for their strong arm tactics, and for the violence often visited upon "scabs." Harking back to the era of the Pinkertons carries little weight given the abuses of today's organized labor.

You can attempt to educate all us misinformed, greedy capitalist ignoramuses about the wonders and joys of socialism. Simply understand that when you do, you'd better be prepared to address the reality of TODAY. You'd better be accurate in your portrayal of the past because you won't find very many folks who are willing to give up their whitewash for your whitewash. Heck, its hard enough to convince people to surrender their whitewash for the unadulterated truth. Last, you really won't make much progress by insulting the average Joe.

Now, two more reasons why socialism is falling out of favor:

10) It has yet to demonstrate any practical capacity for responding to the Free Rider dilemna, a dilemna that intensifies as the welfare state expands.

11) It is favored by the intelligentsia. The perception amongst us benighted sheeple out here is that the intelligentsia don't think very highly of our intelligence, wisdom, taste, or character. Given that the intelligentsia do far more to confirm our perception than refute it, is it any wonder that we have a certain amount of disdain for their pet projects?

Now, Quark, I've presented 11 reasons why Socialism is falling out of favor. Thus far, you've only responded to 1. Hopefully, I've clarified the nature of "social engineering" and how it relates to the disfavor of socialism. Care to respond to the other 10 points?

Now, am I wrong in theorizing that if the far right republicans, in allowing their agenda to go unchecked, could eventually lead to anarchy?

It seems to me, that with the balance of the Democratic party doesnt' allow this to happen - - just a benefit of our two party system.

The agenda of the Republican party, to me, seems to be for the rights of the individual...or more accurately, "every man for himself". As indicated by the recent "tax cuts", the idea to centralize the wealth, and eliminate spending on programs like social security, welfare, and other government funded programs, would eventually lead to the collapse of our economic systems.

Conversely, the Democrats, or perhaps the Liberals, have the "it takes a village to raise a child" approach, in that we all have to help each other....."one can do a lot, but all of us working together can do more"....which is why many of the programs are still around. Obviously, the Democratic Party leans more toward socialist ideals.

Hi. Welcome to AD!

I just left the Fascism and America thread, where there have been some disturbing parallels drawn between the Bush administration and the classic definitions of fascism. The quotations link corporatism with fascism.

It's possible that several Republicans lean toward libertarian ideals, not exactly anarchy. But the Bush administration favors more control, which is certainly not anarchistic or libertarian.

So---if you figure the Democrats lean more toward socialism, keep in mind that the current administration leans toward fascism.

What is better for the average American citizen?


(edited)

Socialism is economic "equality" Fascism is social control by gov't it's like comparing apples and oranges, economically conservatives are closer to neo-liberalism. Political compass.

CP

Let's keep this Socialism discussion in the context of the debate question:

It's because Socialism does not favor the corporations and the free market system.

The leaders of many of the Western countries are there largely due to the influence of the corporate leaders; they owe them. The corporate leaders are not interested in paying higher taxes in order to help the less fortunate in society; they want to make profits, the bigger the better.

Distributing the wealth of the corporations and their leaders to those in need is not a priority. Indeed, it is something to be avoided.

Hold on now, is it possible that all rich people aren't evil? Come on, we have welfare [though we shouldn't] to help the poor. We have charity to help the poor, and encourage them to work hard to become rich. Socialism would single handedly eliminate the American dream.

CP

Whose American Dream?

Yes, it is possible that all the rich aren't evil, insofar as it is possible that all the poor are not undeserving deadbeats.

You tell me, which group has the better representation in government?

Which group needs more representation in government?

Well they all vote don't they. So with that said, they both have the same political power. Whose American Dream, how about the poor people who could work hard and make more money and become rich.

CP

If it amounted only to votes, I would agree with you. But then PAC's wouldn't be so popular, would they?

If this is the best government MONEY CAN BUY, then we need to shift our priorities.

And incidentally, Bush was appointed by the Supreme Court justices his daddy nominated. Thanks to the Florida problem.

(edited for spelling)